Debunking the Orientalist Perspective on Caste

What is unique about anthropology as a discipline is the use of the concept of ‘other’, to overcome the limits of its origin and location. (Das, 1995) Since Anthropology survived at the behest of the colonial administration, it was based on the ideas of understanding and studying “the other.” Anthropology went hand in hand with, and became an important part of sociology. The discourse about the East as “the other” is called “Orientalism”. It is a term that was coined by Edward Said to explain a phenomenon that is characterised by the romanticisation of the East as ‘nostalgic and backward’. “The Orient” is seen as a contrasting image of the West, and of all that is modern, as something alien and inferior. This narrative runs through almost all the ideas about the East that are produced by the West. Naturally thus, when western scholars tried to study Indian society, they drew conclusions, authorised views, and produced literature that was coloured by Orientalism.
When the Indian society was studied by western scholars, starting with Max Weber, followed by Celestin Bougle in the British colonial censuses, and subsequently Louis Dumont, the concept of caste was made out to be central to the understanding of the Indian society. HH Risley, the colonial head of the 1901 census came up with concepts such as “Race Science” to explain that castes in India existed to protect racial purity. As consequence of the work produced by western scholars, largely during the colonial era, Indian sociology suffers immensely from a colonial hangover.
French anthropologists Celestine Bougle and Louis Dumont came up with many theories which were later called, and critically so, “the book view on caste.” They placed an overwhelming importance on the concept of “varna” in an attempt to simplify, what was in actuality, diverse and far less totalizing. Most people know the varna system to be a pyramid-like structure comprising of Brahmins at the top, followed by the Kshatriyas and Vaishyas and then the Shudras at the bottom rung. Bougle said that this hierarchy existed in all parts of the country, with Brahmins indisputably at the top.
One of the most important critics of this type of understanding of caste wasan Indian scholar, M. N Srinivas, who wrote forcefully that the varna model had produced a wrong and distorted view of caste and it was necessary for the sociologists to free themselves from the hold of the varna model if they wished to understand the caste system. Srinivas pointed out that the word “varna” referred to the colour of one’s skin and it was only later that this term was used to refer to a hierarchical social distinction. Then he points out that all caste groups in the country could not be classified in this strict four-fold hierarchy. At its best, the varna system could be a broad classification, but not a reflection of how the caste units functioned in real life. The term Kshatriya in itself could be attached to anyone who succeeded in attaining power and control, and this process had been much more fluid. Further, there is no consensus regarding the placement of some castes in the Varna hierarchy. (Quigley, 1993: 92). This is because of the highly localised nature of caste. And though it is admitted that Brahmins are placed mostly at the top and Shudras at the bottom, there is ambiguity in many parts of the country with regards to the ritual rank of castes and this makes it possible for communities to legitimise their claims as upper castes once they attain certain wealth or power and adopt upper-caste practices. A person, when asked about his caste in the day, would say anything ranging from his occupation to title. And since this “field view” of caste could not be understood, or systematically organized by the colonial administration, they resorted to the varna model to make whatever sense they could of it. The classification of castes and official recording of them under the census completely took away whatever little fluidity the system had. It not only crystallised the caste system by labelling people under particular heads, but also legitimised the caste system within the strict confines of the varna model. Thus it is argued that under the colonial regime, caste was made out to be all-pervasive when the reality was not that totalising. It is peculiar that the western narrative around caste seemed to fit in perfectly well with the Orientalist idea of the East.
-Aakanksha Jadhav
References:
Bhadra, B. (2013). “Caste(s): Through the Archetypal ‘Orientalist’ Predicament of Sociology on India.” Indian Sociological Society E-journal, retrieved 3rd March, 2019 (http://www.insoso.org/images/pdfs/Art2.2-Bhadra.pdf)
Das, V. (1995) Critical Events: An Anthropological Perspective on Contemporary India. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Quigley, D. (1993) The Interpretation of Caste. Oxford: Clarendon Press.